On Monday 14 January 2008 15:01:33 jdd wrote:
Cristian Rodríguez a écrit :
jdd escribió:
so making a light version would be a no work process.
A "no work process" are you serious ? mantaining an LTS version pretty much involves hiring/creating a whole new team, mantaining and stable system running old software is a hell lot of work.
what makes you think it would be a piece of cake ?
it would be a no work process only for Novell who already do the job. I should only be a script to login with reduced rights on one SLES system
In your opinion. Say there's a problem with the package that is released for openSUSE LTS, this then needs to be assigned to the engineering teams, who are already assigned to SLE and openSUSE thereby diluting the effort that can be spent here. Hint: Novell make money from SLE. The amounts that people have suggested for a 'license' for openSUSE LTS is not economically viable. And, how many releases of openSUSE would you want to be labelled as LTS? Every one? This would mean 'the openSUSE community' would have to keep supporting all the packages within all these releases. Not a viable proposition. The other suggestion of a limited number of packages that is maintained is equally no-go. What if an update to a 'supported' package breaks a non-supported package? The amount of work you're suggesting for the monetary return is just not possible.
one say it can be done by each one (and it's like this that many people do), this show it's not so hard... for real IT professional, what I'm not :-(
What you call 'not hard to do' actually requires a lot of work and time from the developers and engineers involved - not to mention the infrastructure costs that would be increased due to the increased amount of supported packages. As you say, you're not an IT professional, so maybe not best placed to judge this?
As I see it, Novell should compare a professional install versus a personal one. Flag where the SLES price is spent (why is SLED so expensive versus SLED) and see if they can make a personal (SLEDP - P for "Personal") version much cheaper with little cost.
I think you're asking why is SLES more expensive than SLED? I guess that's the nature of the pricing of servers in the market place. The cost of SLED is pretty low already, so I can't see the benefit of producing a lower cost version for personal use - that really would cannibalise SLED sales.
But as I said, one can look at the already working LTS of the competitor and see if the bussines model is viable, I don't *require* anything.
And just how much profit is this 'competitor' making? Answers on a post card please... It's all very easy to talk a good game when you're backed by a billionaire who can afford to make losses whilst building a brand. Novell can't do that - the SUSE brand already exists and cannibalising it makes no economic sense. Currently SLES is released for those who require the peace of mind of long term support and stability whilst openSUSE is available for more leading edge applications and to see where SLES will be heading. A SLES license isn't all that expensive in the grand scheme of things - if it seems that is, then you're not putting a high enough price on your data or infrastructure. Jon PS In case it's not already clear - these all are my own personal opinions, and in no way represent that of my employer. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org